May I ask why the word "projected" is routinely omitted from most discussions of our state budget "surplus"? Who remembers how much of each projected surplus evaporates before it ever enters the state coffers? Who keeps in mind the billions in state debt, the billions we owe the federal government for unemployment funding and other extensions and the money we have removed from educational spending when we should have been adding to that budget?
Why is it that the DFL routinely tries to spend any expected surplus on paying down our debts to the people, the children of Minnesota, and expanding government services to the people, while the Republicans routinely try to spend any expected surplus on big business and tax cuts, reducing government services available to the majority of Minnesotans? Any answer would be greatly appreciated.
Glenn Livezey, Minnetonka
•••
The Republicans want to issue long-term tax cuts; the governor wants to send refund checks ("Minn. projects $9.3B surplus," front page, March 1). Can we assume, then, that all our roads and bridges are in good shape, our schools are all retrofitted for healthy ventilation and the myriad projects that await addressing are taken care of? Seems like that more than $9 billion could go a long way to improving our state. Isn't that what taxes are supposed to do?
Kenneth A. Harris, Hugo
•••
This week, the Star Tribune highlighted yet another upward revision of the state's predicted budget surplus. It is now more than $9 billion for the current biennium and more than $6 billion in 2024-25. The excess revenue means there is room for both a down payment to address Minnesota's major capital investment needs and to permanently increase funding for education, health care and more. The need for this sort of public investment agenda could not be clearer from the excellent reporting in this paper.